A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200

It's official! As we reported yesterday morning, the iMac Pro is now officially on sale in the United States, starting with the two base models—the 8-core and 10-core variations—and a price tag of $5,000 for the 'standard configuration.'

Up until now, that's the only price we knew for this behemoth of a computer—what Apple calls "the most powerful Mac ever"—but now that the iMac Pro website is official and the product is up in the store, we can find out how much a fully loaded version costs. And let's just say you should hold on to your wallets.

If you go to Apple's store website and trick out the computer, going all the way up to the 2.3GHz 18-core Intel Xeon W Processor with Turbo Boost up to 4.3GHz, 128GB of 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory, a 4TB SSD, and a Radeon Pro Vega 64 graphics card with 16GB of its own HBM2 memory, your price tag goes up to.

Drum roll please...

$13,200

If you do one of the more basic configurations, you'll be able to get yours in the next 1-2 weeks. However, if you plan to shell out the aforementioned $13,200 for the fully-loaded 18-core beast, don't expect to get the computer in 2017. According to the Apple store website, a fully loaded variation will ship in 6-8 weeks.

To learn more or configure your own (if you're lucky enough to have pockets this deep) head over to the iMac Pro website.

I want an even lower spec on just cos I like the design (bet they offer this is a few years) a bit like Suzuki doing a tiny a Harley lookalike

LOL

Obviously this beast is for people that actually need that kind of processing power and will use it...all the same +$800 to increase the HD to 2TB seems bit steep, it's only +£180 on the current iMac to go from 1TB to 2, but I suppose it's platinum plated or suffin', (clearly I know squat about it).

I think I might get one just to look at it, I'll put it in a perspex box: oh no, hang on - someone already did that with an apple!

I remember some nonsense about Mac being better than PC for post-processing. Absolutely hilarious ignorance!

No doubt that the new iMac Pros are strong computers. But unless you have money to burn, and even if you do, you should remember that this is the computer industry. Those specs will be standard fare in no time. All you're doing is paying for the privilege to be first. That's it. Oh, that, and lining the pockets of Apple execs.

There are two points I would disagree: A: Being first might be one argument for the rich kids. And yes Apple likes them. But if you need computing power professionally it's not about being first, but calculating how much this will improve your daily workflow.B: No this computing power will not be standard that soon. Times have changed and recent developement is more focused on power efficency than performance. A seven (!) year old out spec'd Mac Pro will give you a performance that is still not consumer standard. Check video render benchmarks. Those machines last very long as excellent power horses that are designed to run 24/7.Now to not look as an Apple defender I have to add: Putting pro components in a super slim housing and filling it up with glue is ridiculous.

We recently ordered Dell Precision workstations at my job for Revit and Autocad work and it was €&£$% expensive and not very fast, and t takes a looong time to start (no flash/ hybrid disks). And I have to say that Windows is (still) as bad as it's reputation. iMacs are way cheaper and definitely faster and I would never, ever use anything but Macs if it was my own decisions. (Have an iMac 27" and a MacBook Pro 13")

Yeah, we have windows workstations with nVMe drives that bench in the 3GB/s range. They are so fast you can't even believe it.

Really, though, nobody that isn't doing CAD or 3D should be touching these kinds of computers. A standard topped out i7 system for $2K ( or $3k if apple) is going to be your best option for regular photo/video editing.

The low end Dell Precision workstations are artificially spec-ed in such a way that they are essentially unusable, in order to force the users to the higher end models. If you are ordering only several of them, you are also paying full price, which larger shops won't. Overall, you get the worst performance / price ratio for any computing system.

In this year nobody should ever bother buying any computer with a HDD as the boot disk drive. If you are in the >$2K range, you should in fact _only_ consider NVMe drives.

Dell Precision tech support used to be the best in the business, and I believe that's still is for the premium support option. And you can get exceedingly fast machines, but - no - they don't come cheap.

OTOH, the machines tend to be bulletproof. So much so that I bought a 3 y/o (prob off-lease) model last year and had the refurb vendor upkit it a bit for me. $900 later I had a Dual 8 core Xeon 2667 (2.7/3.2 GHz) with a 1TB SSD and 64GB of RAM. I dropped a GTX1080 in it myself, as it required a custom power connector.

There are relatively few programs which can take advantage of that many cores, but it does fly through massively parallel stuff. AutoCAD is possibly one of the most inefficiently coded applications in all of creation, but it's at least usable on this machine. Premiere, which is limited to using about 10-12 cores efficiently, is just blissfully fast.

They are not "artificially spec-ed in such a way that they are essentially unusable" that's just rubbish. They are specced to a price point for offices that do simple admin work with Word+Outlook+Excel+Edge. Of course these machines won't cut it for graphic designers or CAD use.

The low-end Dell Precision workstation is not that expensive. But you sacrifice performance by opting for a low end machine, which is not the fault of the machine or the operating system.I have a 2-years old Dell Precision workstation, with a quad-core i7-M processor (i7-4990 Q-M), with Windows 10 Pro 64, Samsung 512GB EVO 850 Pro, and just 8GB RAM, and the machine is faster than I can feed it with tasks to do.Obviously you got some machines that are poorly spec'd. So it is convenient to lay the blame on Windows.

They had a meeting with a few journalists last spring where they admitted they screwed up with the Mac Pro and the design they made would not work going forward and they had to go back to the drawing board and redesign it entirely (they had hoped to just to a generation or two of spec bumps). They said they are making a new Mac Pro but it would not be out in 2017. Which most people are interpreting to be something in 2018, but because they were so vague it might be 2019.

I’m a designer, and I studied photography. I do user experience design and research. So, per year I can budget about $5-10K for tools and software. You have to have deductions. And, a computer or camera lasts many years.

These are tools, and I am fortunate to both love what I do and make money doing it. I will get a Pro next year, but certainly not the high end model.

iMacs are great for people who live in tiny houses or in boats or RVs, where there's no space on top of a desk or on the floor to sit a big tower chassis that has lots of expansion bays and slots for countless hardware features, with numerous power supply, motherboard, CPU, GPU, storage, WiFi, memory and cooling options and the ability to upgrade those hardware components almost indefinitely or...

They're also very good for people whose desks are in public because they are stylish.

You can actually upgrade the GPU with this iMac using an eGPU and Thunderbolt 3, same with storage.

It does upset me that you cannot upgrade the RAM on this iMac (you can on the regular 27" ones) because I could see wanting 128GB for 3D modeling in the future but I also expect prices for memory to drop substantially.

As far as the monitor... I would agree except you'd be hard pressed to find a better monitor out there.

It's not the quality of the monitor, it's the form factor and the fact it's welded on to the computer. Some don't like a single 27" screen. I much prefer 2 (or 3) 24" monitors over 1 single 27" as far as workflow. I haven't used a single screen since the 90s. And if I was spending that kind of dough, I'd probably want a couple 32" 4k or a wraparound. As long as I can, I will never buy an AIO desktop computer of any brand. Always preferred the mac mini and mac pro lines going back to G3's and such.

I think maybe tastes are changing for that... maybe not for serious video work, but for graphics, layout people, web video people etc etc... They are totally fine with one screen imac solutions or even just a laptop. At my last company (a media company) a lot of the younger people had a choice of desktop with 2 monitors or laptop with one monitor, whichever brand they preferred. What did most do? They picked a laptop and never even docked the extra monitors. IT team gave quite a few people that wanted them a 3rd monitor instead.

It's the (Apples) second recommendation, ships this year, has the fastest Turbo CPU which is the best option for most people over the 12 and 18 core configurations with slower turbos, with 64GB which is enough to future proof it for a while, and 1TB and you can always slap on external drives.

My recommendation too, if I were to spend that.

The 12 and 18 core configurations are overkill as is the 128GB memory or larger drive options, for most people. Not just overkill, If you don't use more then 32GB of memory, or, you're using something designed for that many cores like VR in FCP, it's literally unused cores and mem.

That’s the spec I’m looking at, I’ve seen some reviews who have compared that to existing iMac 27 i7 render speeds for complex premier projects and we are talking a 200-300% increase in render speeds.... which will save an enormous amount of time. So much that we should be able to cut the number of machines we have in use...

64GB is overkill for most people in this forum. Hell 32GB is probably overkill for most photographers. Lightroom and photoshop hardly ever press up against 24GB for most people. Now for Photogrammetry, 128GB might not be enough.

Imacs are over priced. There just using standard PC parts now. You pay through the nose for the OS. I build my own Pc's and can do that for 1/3 the price imac charges. If you really believe the Apple OS is worth that then have at it. Oh this super priced one is way over kill. Zeon processor are made for severs not for photo of video editing. You will never use that much ram either.

If you think it is expensive, it is just that you do not need one. After all, I tend to think that a 437 million dollars Airbus A380 is way too expensive! But I heard Emirates is about to buy about 30 of them… Just depends on your needs and the money you will make out of it.

The Apple is overpriced argument has grown old and tired. Some people like cheap wine, some people like fine wine, get over it. You pay for quality, performance, security, and stability that is a clear cut abovewindows. Don’t believe me, ask yourself why CEOs, tech leaders, and the best and brightest in just about any industry all use Apple products. Windows doesn’t have a future. Their mobile eco system is dead. They have no thriving App Store like that of Google and Apple. Average joe consumer only needs a tablet these days. And ask any teenager and they will tell you Windows is something “my dad used to use at work”, they only know Android and iOS.

Sure, for people that built their own stuff the "manufacturer's version" is always "too expensive". I'm pretty sure many people could build a Nikon D850 clone if it consisted of only 10 modular parts that are sold to consumers. While that is nice for you, there will be plenty of people who will buy the "overcharged" Nikon because they trust that more, have better warranty, and arguably because it's "better"... because well, they have a lot of people who work full time on that thing, being it R&D, testing or manufacturing.

You're a moron if you think this machine is for photo editing (that's what the regular 27" iMac is for) this is for 3D Photogrammetry, AR/VR development, neural net development, and compiling. And 128GB is barely enough for high res photogrammetry I know some people running 1TB of RAM for it.

@retr01976 Linux started the apps store way before mac or Google remember Google bought android in 07 08 they didn't make it, than they first try to use a version of Ubuntu but mark gave them hell so Google settle on a version of gen-too for Google chrome, since 93 Debian uses the app to install stuff they just called it apt-get

Not sure where the idea that Xeons are only for servers is coming from. Xeons are plenty applicable for workstations. Also, it has been spec'd out multiple times and you cannot build this system for a third of the cost. That's ludicrous. At base spec, you'll save about $1000 dollars and at max spec, you'll save about $2k building it yourself. Factor in the engineering and R&D costs for making it a sleek all-in-one design and then give a little for making a profit (because yes, corporations are trying to make a profit, obviously) and you're there. Apple does absolutely have reputation for making severely overpriced machines. However, this isn't one of them. This is just like when the trashcan Mac Pro first came out where it's pricing was roughly at cost. I abhor Apple, but I applaud this machine. It's seriously amazing. Lack of modularity (and Windows) is the deal breaker for me, but you can't call it overpriced or underpowered by any means.

I only ask as it is technically a built-in display, an iMac basically a MacBook in a different case with a large screen. The MacBook Pro screen is fixed at 60Hz making viewing 24 or 25fps footage a juddery nightmare.

Just for the record, would anyone mind configuring something like that for windows and tell us the rough price? Because there's always a gang of people coming in claiming how retarded one must be to buy a Mac if the same specifications can be had for half the price elsewhere, but this time I somehow doubt that an 18-core CPU, 128 GB of Ram and a 16 GB graphics card can be had significantly cheaper elsewhere.

You save money building your own by cutting back on components you don't need, using standard form components that can be replaced and upgraded in the future, and by re-using components in future builds.

Regardless of how the off-the-shelf prices compare, iMac lets you do none of this.

I have a Dell Win10 workstation that has dual processors, 24 Xeon cores, 256 GB of Registered ECC RAM, 1 TB SSD and 32 TB of Perq-controlled spinning rust, a big honking AMD GPU; It cost about $11K almost two years ago, including 4 years of 24/7 onsite hardware replacement. I can't even get that much RAM in the new Apple product, nor dual processors. The Apple computer does include a display.

It's a reasonable price, you're at €10k in Windows land as well. One thing that has to be seen though is wether Apple managed proper thermal management this time. Both the previous 4 core 4.5 GHz iMac and the Mac Pro had serious problems with thermal throttling and that exhaust on the iMac Pro is laughable.

Bobthearch, exactly. People that just spec out a brand new computer each time don't understand. I've done it once, ever, around 1998 or so, everything else has been an extension of that original machine through component upgrades/transfers. Of course, there is nothing in my current main machine left hardware wise, but they could all be traced back. Building your own machines is about the long game, you can wait for deals overtime, buy what you need, etc. not this lets compare a windows build off the shelf spec for spec on components that apple probably got a deal to build. That's not even the way you'd do it, you match it up to performance wise... and there are usually other ways to achieve it. If you are buying these for a company or university, different story... but as a home user... why?

Please before somebody comments that 13.000$ is expensive:Mobo with 10Gbit - 600$Intel Xeon W -2600$128GB ECC 2666-1500$WX9100 Vega 64 16GB -1500$4TB Pcie SSD -2500$5K Display 10Bit -1500$So we are already at 10300$ and some parts are still missing. Yes the computer is not cheap. But the markup is not insane

I don't know much about prices much but you are talking about 30% mark-up and your prices are probably retail prices so there is already profit built-in. Again according to your prices, then Apple's profit is like 35-40%.

30% profit is very low. Also there are still parts missing. I just listed the most expensive ones. In the professional PC world you can easily get 50%+ with most machines. On the iphone apple has a profit margin of 70%

Also the post was not about the profit apple makes. It was about the fact, that you can't build a similar PC much cheaper.

And for a $3,000 markup you get a lousy one-year warranty?!? You'd get a much longer warranty on most components purchasing them yourself.

And good luck upgrading that thing in the future. Want to add an optical drive to burn a BluRay? A multi-card reader? Additional hard drives? Maybe some audio or video devices? Fat freakin' chance.Or need to replace the power supply at some point? Add a standard graphic card? Maybe just a few more ports like an additional HDMI or USB or even a serial port for connecting some vintage device? Nope, you can't do any of that either.

I actually went ahead and tried to build a similar PC and the price was 11000 :) https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Quite close to yours. I picked the best pieces (or the ones close to Apple's configuration). So yes, Apple has huge profit margin on that one because $11 000 already includes profit.

"but you have to assemble and install it yourself, don't have warranty"

Component manufacturers have very generous warranties. That is until the components are stuck in a box that says Dell or Mac. Then, poof, those great warranties are gone, replaced by the joke warranties that Dell and Apple include.Of course you can always buy extended warranties, sometimes these can be extended long enough to get back to the level the components had in the first place. But of course, Cha-Ching! $$$

Lol the whole point of a company is to make as much profit as customers are willing to pay. A home made windows pc with eqivalent screen wont be much cheaper. And it will lack the design and all in one setup.. which has its worth to many customers

Pro-grade Dell and HP machines are no bargains either compared to snapping one together yourself. But at least they can be customized after you get them in the shop. And they can be easily repaired, upgraded, or cannibalized in the future.

The kind of market that will spend this kind of money wants/needs easy upgrade ability and isn't all that interested in "all-in-one" with a display. They'll sell some of the lower end systems, but the high end? I see very few being sold.

The Mac Pro and its custom components didn't sell well either and its design is thermally limited preventing GPU upgrades - did they learn that lesson or is the imac pro also thermally limited?

I think 23% profit margin (10k/13k) when considering (key) component prices is quite okay. You'll get an Apple with for that, with warranty for the full system, build quality and control, design, OS, etc. You'll be sure that that thing will run very well for many years without much trouble.

I agree that the loss of upgrade functionality is a downside, but I think that many non-computer people like designers/photographers/videographers just replace the whole system anyway.

Bokehfanatic, it isn't 23% it is 3K / 10K (profit / cost) so %30. 30% margin is HUGE, And remember that 10K cost also includes profit (that is retail price, naturally that includes margin) so Apple's margin is even larger.

You're missing a case and power supply (keeping in mind these are a power hungry CPU and GPU)

Bobthearch it has thunderbolt 3. You can add whatever you want, blu-ray, multicard, graphics cards, HDMI monitors, or whatever via that. Of course that said. the kind of person who would actually get this computer and use it to it's fullest is not going to be needing blu-ray or multi-card readers, because this isn't for photographers. It's for 3D model builders, AR/VR development, AI development, etc. For Lightroom/Photoshop/Capture One Pro, and even 4k video editing, the basic iMac is going to be faster.

I remember reading one of apple's financial report few years back. They said iphone was 80% profit margin. Assuming all hardware is around 70-80% margin, it sounds about right.

Not sure if this WX9100 Vega64 is a true FirePro series, the trashcan mac pro has been found to be just gaming GPUs with a tweak driver, OpenGL & other 3D benchmarks are not comparable to a true WX card.

Cmon, this discussion is a joke. Panther's point is: You don't get that configuration significantly cheaper in components or as a package from other brands like Dell or HP. So margins from them are basically the same. If you use Final Cut or DaVinci Resolve professionally you will value Apple's limited configuration options as they will be perfectly supported by this pro software. Personally I will be waiting for something modular. But for the price discussion: Stop ranting until you show us the cheaper Dell or HP with the same performace.

Proprietary connectors, dongles, and cables are not positive selling points. And they aren't "Professional," especially with components scattered on the tabletop that would be installed internally on a standard-form computer.

Nice machine. Buy it if you can use all of that power. I have the new 5K iMac i7 it's loaded with SSD and 40 GB. It's a dual monitor setup and I can't imagine a nicer photo workstation. Apple stuff rocks, but they're behind on the phones.

It's blazing fast with Lightroom, PS and DXO Photolab. D850 files open fast. Get the SSD and add memory yourself. The 5K screen is nice, but really no better than the excellent 4K Dell screen next to it. You don't need a big SSD. The 512 or 1TB are fine. Just add external storage as needed. I suggest going with the I7 processor as well. You should get 5-7 years out of it.

I have both. Job always uses iPhone, but the Note is just a better experience. Samsung has better higher res screen and YES, I can see it with D850 files. Samsung has expandable memory. Samsung has a real jack so I can use my best headphones. The always-on display of the Samsung is great. Note screen gives larger keyboard-far better. As for the X being faster, in practical terms there is no difference. Both phones do things pretty much instantly. The problem with the iPhones is that they now FOLLOW the industry. Most of my "new" X features are old news for Samsung. Both are great phones, but one has expandability, bigger higher res screen and a stylus. The Note is just more device and STILL the Note 8 is faster. Sorry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1YELmjh9g

Cool thanks for that. Right now I can upgrade the Mobo, Ram, Monitor, Heatsink, and CPU to something current for around $1400, which will make lightroom run much better (Core 2 Duo is not happy, especially when I borrowed a D850 for a day - the files literally crashed lightroom).

There's no difference in using IOS vs. Android, but Android is absolutely more customizable. If you don't care about that, then they are the same and do the same things. If you get into the nitty gritty, the Samsung phones have better screens, expandable memory and are faster. I posted a link to prove it. As for the computers, again I use both. But I can't mess around with windows on photo jobs. Yes, my iMac was expensive compared to a PC, but it's a beautiful system that just works without a hitch, 5K display makes clients happy and it flies through D850 files like butter. If you're on a budget, there are lower cost options that work okay.

Actually many apps have more features, get features first, and just look better on iOS than the android... It is getting better, but it has been like that for years. I use all for website testing and have 2 iphones, 1 note, 2 galaxy phones plus an amazon fire.

Android now has more of the world market and is on more devices. As I said, I have both. There is no advantage so far as apps go. Depending on usage, some sites work better on one or the other. But if you want the best phone, the Note 8 cleanly bests the iPhone X in both speed, screen and storage. It also has a pen and beyond the specs, the screen of the Note 8 is just more impressive and nice to use. Samsung did not give Apple their best screens! You can't escape Samsung. They make a fortune off of Apple sales as well as their own phones. Samsung along with a few others are the ones setting this market now with leading tech. Steve Jobs would never have let this happen. If he hadn't died, the X would've been released 2 years ago.

Oh, no, here is this grossly overpriced nonsense again. I know, I know, a Leica anything is grossly overpriced. So is the new Olympus f/1.2 lens. So is software by Adobe. So is anything that is not "full frame." So is a roll of film. So is......

Why can't you calibrated the screen properly? I've had no issues calibrating the regular iMac screens with BasICColor and an i1 Pro. And in my measurments, those are calibrated pretty well to a decent standard out of the box.

That said, this isn't for photographers or videographers (that's what the normal 27" iMac is for) this is for 3D modeling, AI neural net development, etc.

It has no hardware calibration. It has no 14 or 16bit LUT. You can't calibrate a screen very well without that, and you can't match multiple screens to the same calibration without that - all critical things in the content creation world. It won't matter to everyone (some jobs are less sensitive to color accuracy), but I'm guessing it will matter to a lot of people spending as much as a car on a PC specifically for content creation. The best you get is vague instructions sent to the GPU to correct color that have to be re-calibrated on a frequent basis and cannot change in real time to correct for things like changing display temperature and back-light uniformity.

Monitors from Eizo and NEC like the PA272, for example, have proper calibration with built in LUTs. They aren't expensive. This is a glaring omission on a purpose built machine for content creators/editors on arguably the most important component.

Lets see how long it takes before someone here manages to turn this announcement into a cropped sensor v full frame argument (while balking at the outrageous price and mocking at the audacity to call it a Pro). My bet is 5 messages. Maybe less!

Well you can’t build a comparable PC for less than Apple charges for the lower end iMac Pros, let’s not nitpick over $100 or so, which means they are fairly priced; I wonder if the same is true for the high end ones.

How dare they charge so much for a computer when I can build one with an AMD Faceripper with 34 cores for $100. How dare they charge a $13000 premium for aesthetics. It's a crime against humanity. Apple must be stopped. C'mon DPReviewers, muster the troops and flame Apple out of existence!!!

Well, as I suppose everybody here understands, this is a working tool, so, if your work justifies it (after all, how much costs a camera like an Hasselblad H6D-100C and a few lenses, another working tool, much more expensive I guess…), it may actually allow you to make money and why not buy a car, or two… Of course, for personal use such as video games or surfing the web, I am sure there are a lot of better options… ;)

@Lan: Do you want a washing machine without a built in microwave oven and a Blu ray-player? Of course everybody would, exept some if there was an Apple logo on it. They would call it geniously Innovative and immidiatly pay 30% more then top of the line separate products. Then the blu ray drive breakes after a couple of years and they have to buy a new washing machine and mircrowave oven to replace it. You know, the components are glued together with cryptonite so they cant be repaired.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.